The wildfires in northern California in 2017 destroyed more than 8,000 structures, exacerbating the existing housing crisis and creating a jobs shortage for low-income workers, especially farm workers, domestic workers, and workers in the tourism industry. Photo: National Guard

Yesterday, President Trump unveiled his administration’s outline for upgrading the country’s deteriorating infrastructure system. While massive investments are much-needed, the proposed framework is short-sighted and will make it that much harder to deliver on promises to help build a better future for all Americans and to ensure federal tax dollars are well-spent. UCS President Ken Kimmell has summarized UCS’ serious concerns with the plan here.

Ms. Flegal is an expert on infrastructure, and has more than 20 years of experience building coalitions and leading policy campaigns to improve outcomes for low-income communities and communities of color in California.

Among the concerns is the fact that it fails to address two critical shortcomings of existing infrastructure systems and practices: they are not prepared for a growing number of extreme weather events and climate-related stressors, and they do not serve all communities. Over the past year alone, we have seen our infrastructure fail under increasingly extreme hurricanes, heat, floods, and wildfires, with serious impacts on communities and businesses. We also know that both an “infrastructure gap” and a “climate gap” leave underserved and disadvantaged communities more vulnerable to these risks.

I recently sat down with Chione Flegal, Senior Director at PolicyLink, a national institute advancing racial and economic equity, to discuss climate risks to vulnerable communities, and the important role “climate smart” infrastructure can play in achieving healthy, thriving communities in the face of climate change. While our conversation focused on California, her insights will likely resonate with many other communities across the United States.

Let’s start with the current state of our infrastructure in California. How would you describe it, especially in disadvantaged and vulnerable communities?

Like the rest of the country, California has a history of investing in infrastructure to promote growth, but has now had a long period of disinvestment. Even in the best of times, infrastructure investments varied across communities. In a New York Times column last year, PolicyLink CEO, Angela Glover Blackwell, highlighted the millions of Americans who lack access to public transportation, clean water, and other critical infrastructure.

Similarly, across California, there are communities, disproportionately low-income and of color, that lack the basic features of a healthy, sustainable neighborhood—potable water, sewer systems, safe housing, public transportation, parks, sidewalks, storm drains, streetlights, schools, and libraries.

This not only affects the health and opportunity of residents, but has serious consequences for the state as well.For example, one million Californians are served by water systems that don’t meet safety standards. This presents health risks and means residents may be spending limited income buying bottled water on top of their water bill.

Unfortunately, for too many communities, current infrastructure investments are insufficient, or are invested in projects that exacerbate, rather than address, health and economic inequities. This is, in part, why PolicyLink initiated the Center for Infrastructure Equity to ensure that public investments in infrastructure create economic opportunity and health in all communities. Equity is not only a moral imperative, but an economic one: evidence shows that increasing equality and diversity is the superior model for sustained economic growth.

How does climate change affect these communities?

Climate change affects communities of color and low-income communities first and worst.

They already experience social and environmental vulnerabilities that negatively impact their lives. Climate change exacerbates these vulnerabilities, deepening the health and economic challenges they already experience.

The tragic irony of the climate gap is that low-income people and people of color contribute less to climate change. However, the negative impacts of industries that drive climate change — industrial facilities, oil extraction and refining activities, unsustainable agriculture, poorly planned transportation systems, roads, freeways, etc. — disproportionately affect them, and the longer-term climate impacts will also hit them hardest.

We often talk about climate resilience. What does that mean in your work? And what role does climate-smart infrastructure have in supporting climate resilient communities?

I am challenged by the terminology of resilience because communities of color and low-income people are the most resilient of communities. Our communities have persisted and survived in the face of racism, pollution, disinvestment, and more. So, resilience feels like a strange aspiration for communities that are already incredibly resilient.

At PolicyLink, we want communities to thrive now and in the future, despite climate change. As part of our policy advocacy in California, this means working to make the necessary investments so that ALL Californians are healthy, prepared for work, and have the supports they need to raise their family and reach their full potential.

As surface water supplies decreased during the most recent California drought, over-pumping of groundwater led to thousands of well failures, impacting low-income rural communities in the Central Valley.

Making sure infrastructure is climate-smart is key. Building a water system that won’t work when it floods or won’t work because we’re dependent on a water source that disappears in a drought, won’t allow a community to thrive. Because infrastructure is foundational to achieving healthy communities of opportunity, infrastructure needs to be able to function and provide support and services for communities, regardless of what happens with our changing climate.

What do you see as the biggest challenges to ensuring more equitable outcomes as California advances climate resilience in infrastructure?

This country’s history is grounded in a pattern of exploitation and disinvestment in communities of color – like redlining and highway construction and “eminent domain” that benefited wealthier suburbs while running right through communities of color – and California is no different.

We have to turn that around, which means making really intentional choices that overcome historical patterns of segregation, disinvestment, and discrimination. We can begin to do this by giving low-income people and people of color agency in the decisions about how we invest in public infrastructure.

There are examples of community leaders stepping up to demand that their voices be included, and the projects are better as a result. In Fresno, community leaders worked to get their voices heard in projects like Bus Rapid Transit and the Transformative Climate Communities effort; in the Bay Area, partners demanded equity be considered as the region developed its Sustainable Community Strategy; in Los Angeles communities worked hard to have their voices included in the planning for restoration of the LA River.

We must envision, plan, design, and build projects and include community knowledge and expertise from the start so that projects address the needs and priorities of our communities. This is a different way of approaching infrastructure planning and investment, which has been a highly technical and specialized field where engineers and politicians make choices and the resulting projects are often at odds with community needs.

What are the biggest policy opportunities over the coming year to advance equity, climate resilience, and climate-smart infrastructure?

We’re in a moment where Californians understand that investing in infrastructure is critical for health, well-being, and prosperity. We’ve passed a new transportation funding measure, have extended our climate trading program, have a parks and water bond on the ballot in June, and a housing bond on the ballot in November. Together, these programs will invest billions of dollars in infrastructure every year.

This creates an opportunity to change how we make investments. We need to be deliberate about targeting our investments to disinvested communities, for projects that will improve health and opportunity, and allow all to reach their full potential, in spite of our changing climate.

UCS and PolicyLink are currently collaborating on a project to advance solutions and help address key climate risks to infrastructure and the impacts of climate-related infrastructure disruption and failure on underserved, vulnerable, and disadvantaged communities in California. Stay tuned for more information!

We know that extreme weather events will become more common and intense as a result of climate change. Such events multiply threats to infrastructure across the state, endangering community well-being, public health and safety, and the economy. A new white paper released by UCS today – Built to Last: Challenges and Opportunities for Climate-Smart Infrastructure in California –makes the case for investing limited public resources in infrastructure that can withstand climate change impacts and keep Californians safe.

A better path forward

Extreme weather-related infrastructure disruptions in recent years – from power losses and train derailments to bridge and spillway failures, road closures, and low water supplies – provide us with a sobering preview of the future challenges facing California’s infrastructure systems. (See this map for other recent examples.) The type, frequency, and severity of these climate-related hazards will vary by location, but no region of California or infrastructure type will be left untouched.

While the state of our dams, pipes, levees, bridges, and roads is mediocre at best (they received a combined C- on ASCE’s 2012 report card), the need to upgrade or replace our water, power, and transportation systems is a golden opportunity to plan, design, and build these systems with climate resilience in mind. The UCS white paper describes a set of principles for ‘climate-smart’ infrastructure and then highlights barriers and opportunities for improving and accelerating their integration into public infrastructure decisions.

What is climate-smart infrastructure?

Climate-smart infrastructure is designed and built with future climate projections in mind, rather than relying on historic data that are no longer a good predictor of our climate future. It bolsters the resilience of the Golden State’s communities and economy to the impacts of extreme weather and climate change instead of leaving communities high and dry, overheated, or underwater.

A microgrid is providing efficient, reliable, cleaner power for Blue Lake Rancheria government offices, buildings, and other critical infrastructure, such as an American Red Cross disaster shelter. It will also create local jobs and bring energy cost savings. Photo: Blue Lake Rancheria

Climate-smart also can reduce heat-trapping emissions, spend limited public funds wisely, and prioritize equitable infrastructure decisions. This last point is important because some communities in California are more vulnerable to both climate impacts and infrastructure failure due in part to decades of underinvestment and disinvestment, especially in many low-income communities, communities of color, and tribal communities.

When done right, the results can be innovative infrastructure solutions, like the Blue Lake Rancheria microgrid, that bring social, economic, health, and environmental benefits to Californians AND protect us from the weather extremes we are inevitably facing. More examples of climate-smart principles in action are described in the white paper, and some are shown in the accompanying StoryMap.

This is especially important in light of the billions of taxpayer dollars the state is planning on spending on new long-lived infrastructure projects. Many more billions will be spent on maintenance and retrofitting of existing infrastructure over the next few years. These projects must be able to function reliably and safely despite worsening climate impacts over the coming decades. Otherwise, we risk building costly systems that will fail well before their intended lifespans.

Barriers can be overcome

There are still many reasons why public infrastructure is not being upgraded or built today in a more consistently climate-smart way. They generally fall into three categories: (1) inadequate data, tools, and standards; (2) insufficient financial and economic assessments and investments; and (3) institutional capacity and good governance are lacking.

For example, many engineers, planners, and other practitioners still don’t have enough readily usable information to easily insert climate impacts into their existing decision-making processes and economic analyses. In addition, there has not been enough attention focused on the unique risks and infrastructure vulnerabilities faced by low-income communities, communities of color, and other underserved communities.

The UCS white paper includes several recommendations on how to overcome the barriers we identified. They focus on ways to improve and accelerate the integration of our climate-smart principles into public sector infrastructure decisions. For instance, they range from increasing state and local government staff’s technical capacity and updating standards and codes to better incorporating climate-related costs and criteria, as well as climate resilience benefits, into project evaluations and funding decisions. Others include better planning in advance for more climate-smart disaster recovery efforts, ensuring better interjurisdictional coordination at the local and state government levels, and addressing the funding gap. Additional recommendations and specifics can be found in the paper. All infrastructure solutions should help advance more equitable outcomes, so equity is integrated throughout these recommendations

Building to last? There’s reason for optimism

Progress is being made, as evidenced by the recent state actions mentioned above and a growing number of climate-smart projects and local solutions. For example, Los Angeles has begun a process to update its building codes, policies, and procedures, called Building Forward L.A. San Francisco is incorporating sea level rise into its capital planning. Plus, there’s an ever-expanding list of novel funding mechanisms for these types of infrastructure investment. But we need more, and soon, to help inform the tough decisions ahead as we adapt to climate change and invest in long-lived infrastructure projects. Thoughtful implementation of our recommendations can help clear the way.

California governments should grab hold of the opportunities before them to spend limited resources in climate-smart ways that increase our infrastructure’s ability to provide California’s communities and businesses with the needed services to thrive now and in a changing climate future.

View of Oroville Dam's main spillway (center) and emergency spillway (top), February 11, 2017. The large gully to the right of the main spillway was caused by water flowing through its damaged concrete surface, resulting from heavy rainfall. Photo: California Department of Water Resources.

The news of new federal infrastructure proposals landed in a timely fashion with this year’s Infrastructure Week, including a bill introduced by the House Democrats (LIFT America Act, HR 2479) and another expected shortly from Trump’s administration. For years now, the American Society of Civil Engineers has graded the U.S.’s infrastructure at near failing (D+). With the hashtag #TimetoBuild, Infrastructure Week participants are urging policymakers to “invest in projects, technologies, and policies necessary to make America competitive, prosperous, and safe.”

We must build for the future

Conversations in Washington, D.C. and across the country over the coming weeks and months are sure to focus on what projects to build. But we first need to ask for whatfuture are we building? Will it be a version based on similar assumptions and needs as those we experience today, or a future radically shaped by climate change? (Changing demographics and technologies will undoubtedly shape this future as well.)

It’s imperative that this changing climate future is incorporated into how we design and plan infrastructure projects, especially as we consider investing billions of taxpayer dollars into much needed enhancements to our transportation, energy, and water systems.

Climate change will shape our future

Engineers and planners know that, ideally, long-lived infrastructure must be built to serve needs over decades and withstand the ravages of time—including the effects of harsh weather and extended use—and with a margin of safety to account for unanticipated risks.

Much of our current infrastructure was built assuming that past trends for climate and weather were good predictors of the future. One example where I currently live would be the approach to the new Bay Bridge in Oakland, California, which was designed and built without consideration of sea level rise and will be permanently under water with 3 feet of sea level rise, a likely scenario by end of this century. Currently, more than 270,000 vehicles travel each day on this bridge between San Francisco and the East Bay.

Another near my hometown in New Jersey is LaGuardia Airport in Queens, NY, which accommodated 30 million passengers in 2016. One study shows that if seas rise another 3 feet, it could be permanently inundated; the PATH and Hoboken Terminal are at risk as well.

Instead, we must look forward to what climate models and forecasts tell us will be the “new normal”- higher temperatures, more frequent and intense extreme weather events like droughts and flooding, larger wildfires, and accelerated sea level rise. This version of the future will further stress our already strained roads, bridges, water and energy systems, as well as the natural or green infrastructure systems that can play a key role in limiting these climate impacts (e.g. flood protection). As a result,their ability to reliably and safely provide the critical services that our economy, public safety, and welfare depend on is threatened.

The reality is we are not yet systematically planning, designing and building our infrastructure with climate projections in mind.

In September 2015, the Butte and Valley Fires destroyed more than one thousand structures and damaged hundreds of power lines and poles, leaving thousands of Californians without power.

Earlier this year, more than 188,000 residents downstream of Oroville Dam were ordered to evacuate as water releases in response to heavy rains and runoff damaged both the concrete spillway and a never-before-used earthen emergency spillway, threatening the dam.

Winter storms also resulted in extreme precipitation that devastated California’s roads, highways, and bridges with flooding, landslides, and erosion, resulting in roughly $860 million in repairs.

Similar events have been occurring all over the country, including recent highway closures from flooding along the Mississippi River. Other failures are documented in a Union of Concerned Scientists’ blog series “Planning Failures: The Costly Risks of Ignoring Climate Change,” and a report on the climate risks to our electricity systems.

Will the infrastructure we start building today still function and meet our needs in a future affected by climate change? Maybe. But unlikely, if we don’t plan differently.

Will our taxpayer investments be sound and will business continuity and public safety be assured if we don’t integrate climate risk into our infrastructure decisions? No.

If we make significant federal infrastructure investments over the next few years without designing in protections against more extreme climate forces, we risk spending much more of our limited public resources on repair, maintenance, and rebuilding down the line–a massively expensive proposition.

Building for our climate future

UCS has recently joined and started to amplify a small but growing conversation about what exactly climate-resilient infrastructure entails. This includes several of the Steering Committee Members and Sponsors of Infrastructure Week, including Brookings Institute, American Society of Civil Engineers, AECOM, WSP, and HTNB. The LIFT America Act also includes some funding dedicated to preparing infrastructure for the impacts of climate change.

For example, last year, UCS sponsored a bill, AB 2800 (Quirk), that Governor Brown signed into law, to establish the Climate-Safe Infrastructure Working Group. It brings together climate scientists, state professional engineers, architects and others to engage in a nuts-and-bolts conversation about how to better integrate climate impacts into infrastructure design, examining topics like key barriers, important information needs, and the best design approach for a range of future climate scenarios.

A few principles for climate resilient infrastructure

At UCS, we have also been thinking about key principles to ensure that infrastructure can withstand climate shocks and stresses in order to minimize disruptions to the system and safety (and the communities that depend on it) as well as safety and rebound quickly. Our report, “Towards Climate Resilience: A Framework and Principles for Science-Based Adaption”, outlines fifteen key principles for science-based adaptation.

We sought input from a panel of experts, including engineers, investors, emergency managers, climate scientists, transportation planners, water and energy utilities, and environmental justice organizations, at a recent UCS convening in Oakland, California focused on how we can start to advance policies and programs that will result in infrastructure that can withstand climate impacts.

The following principles draw largely from these sources. They are aspirational and not exhaustive, and will continue to evolve. To be climate-resilient, new and upgraded infrastructure should be built with these criteria in mind:

Scientifically sound: Infrastructure decisions should be consistent with the best-available climate science and what we know about impacts on human and natural systems (e.g., flexible and adaptive approaches, robust decisions, systems thinking, and planning for the appropriate magnitude and timing of change).

Socially just: New or upgraded infrastructure projects must empower communities to thrive, and ensure vulnerable groups can manage the climate risks they’ll face and share equitably in the benefits and costs of action. The historic under-investment in infrastructure in low-income and communities of color must be addressed.

Fiscally sensible: Planning should consider the costs of not adapting to climate change (e.g., failure to deliver services or costs of emergency repairs and maintenance) as well as the fiscal and other benefits of action (e.g., one dollar spent preparing infrastructure can save four dollars in recovery; investments in enhancing and protecting natural infrastructure that accommodates sea level rise, absorbs stormwater runoff, and creates parks and recreation areas).

Ambitiously commonsense: Infrastructure projects should avoid maladaptation, or actions that unintentionally increase vulnerabilities and reduce capacity to adapt, and provide multiple benefits. It should also protect what people cherish, and reflect a long-term vision consistent with society’s values.

Aligned with climate goals: Since aggressive emissions reductions are essential to slowing the rate that climate risks become more severe and common and we need to prepare for projected climate risks, infrastructure projects should align with and complement long-term climate goals – both mitigation and adaptation.

Americans want action for a safer, more climate resilient future

A 2015 study found that the majority of Americans are worried about global warming, with more than 40% believing it will harm them personally. As we engage in discussions around how to revitalize our economy, create jobs, and protect public safety by investing in infrastructure, climate change is telling us to plan and spend wisely.

From the current federal proposals to the recently enacted California transportation package, SB 1 ($52 billion) and hundreds of millions more in state and federal emergency funds for water and flood-protection, there is a lot at stake: taxpayer dollars, public safety and welfare, and economic prosperity. We would be smart to heed this familiar old adage when it comes to accounting for climate risks in these infrastructure projects: a failure to plan is a plan to fail.

Each January, I journey to my doctor’s office for my annual physical. She briefly reviews my medical history before conducting an examination, and we end our visit by discussing key risk factors and a plan to manage them.

Well, just in time for the start of the 2017 legislative session, Oregon received its periodic “climate physical.” The results are sobering, and the treatment plan involves further action to put the Beaver State on the path to a low carbon, climate-resilient economy – a path to good “climate health.”

According to the authors, global emissions of heat-trapping gases are largely responsible for the overall increase in average annual temperatures in the Pacific Northwest over the past century. (Yes, despite an unusually cold winter, the statewide average temperature for 2016 was still much warmer than average.) They found additional signs of human-caused global warming in the 2015 record-low snowpack, more acidic waters off the Oregon coast in 2013, and wildfire activity over the past three decades.

A future of more extremes in every region of the state

Oregonians will face more severe impacts in the future if we continue on our current global carbon emissions trajectory. As shown in the table below, annual temperatures could increase by an average of 8 degrees by the century’s end compared to the late 20th century.

Average temperatures will continue to rise in Oregon compared to the late 20th century under both low and high emissions pathways. Source: Oregon Climate Change Research Institute

Rising temperatures will mean a shrinking snowpack, earlier snowmelt, and diminished summer water supplies as well as increased wildfires. Sea-level rise will lead to more coastal flooding and erosion. There also will likely be overall negative impacts to agriculture over time, and more acidic oceans that affect coastal ecosystems.

The 100+ page report provides detailed information and projections for each of these impacts. One of the most striking findings is that higher temperatures and a record-low snowpack despite normal precipitation levels – conditions that led to the devastating 2015 snow drought – could become commonplace by mid-century.

Another key takeaway is that climate change will affect every region of Oregon. It will also disproportionately impact tribal communities, as well as low-income and rural residents and communities of color. The assessment divides the state into four regions, with snapshots of anticipated climate impacts over the rest of the century:

The Coast: Due to rising sea levels, thousands of homes and more than 100 miles of road face a greater risk of inundation. Warmer and more acidic oceans will affect near-shore fisheries and hatcheries, endangering the local shellfish economy and the workers who rely on that industry. Wildfires in coastal forests will likely become increasingly common as well.

The Willamette Valley: Heat waves will grow in frequency and intensity as temperatures continue to climb, increasing heat-related illnesses and deaths among the region’s residents. Studies project increasing summer water scarcity and growing wildfire risks that could significantly expand burn areas.

The Cascade Range: Precipitation will increasingly fall as rain instead of snow, affecting the ski industry and water supplies. At the same time, forests will likely become even more vulnerable to wildfire, insect infestations and disease. Increased risk of wildfire-related respiratory illnesses is a key health concern for Jackson County.

Eastern Oregon: As snowpack shrinks, water supply will be a concern, especially for residents in the John Day basin with no man-made water storage capacity. Drought is a key health risk for Wasco, Sherman, Gilliam, and Crook counties. The Blue Mountains will also likely experience higher tree mortality and wildfire activity.

Ambitious climate action is the prescription

The Third Oregon Climate Assessment Report includes good news for Oregonians. The worst climate impacts can be avoided through ambitious efforts to curb global carbon emissions.

Following our annual pre-Thanksgiving tradition, my husband and I gathered with friends around a long wooden table on Sunday night to eat homemade pies and share what we’re thankful for this year. Some said family, others their health or jobs.

While I shared those sentiments, my thoughts quickly turned to gratitude for California’s leadership in addressing climate change. The strong voices and actions of our policymakers are a welcome contrast to the uncertainty surrounding climate action under a Trump administration.

Standing Up for Climate Action

Perhaps now more than ever, California’s ability to demonstrate that a low carbon and climate resilient economy is achievable, and that it can spur economic growth and benefit everyone,is critical. That’s why I’m thankful that the state’s leadership has voiced its continued commitment to this vision in recent weeks.

Last Friday, Governor Jerry Brown issued a statement with Oregon Governor Kate Brown, Washington Governor Jay Inslee, and British Columbia Premier Christy Clark that reaffirmed their resolve to stand with the international community and take “bold action to achieve the targets set in the Paris agreement.”

In a joint statement the day after the election, Senate President Pro Tempore Kevin de León and Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon reassured Californians that “California will defend its people and our progress. We are not going to allow one election to reverse generations of progress at the height of our historic diversity, scientific advancement, economic output, and sense of global responsibility.”

Actions Speak Louder Than Words

I’m even more thankful that earlier this year, California made history by adopting the most ambitious heat-trapping emissions targets in North America. This provides much needed certainty for the state’s climate program.

In a feat that seemed nearly impossible until it was accomplished, SB 32 (Pavley) and a companion bill, AB 197 (E. Garcia), became law. Together, they establish an ambitious emissions reduction goal for 2030 of 40 percent below 1990 levels, and increase legislative oversight for the state’s climate programs while underscoring that the policies must help the communities most affected by climate change and air pollution.

Of course, setting the targets is only the first step. We have a lot of work to do to achieve the state’s 2030 target and 2050 target of 80 percent below 1990 levels, and to do it in a way that can benefit all Californians.

My UCS colleagues and I are closely following development of the state’s roadmap to 2030, the Scoping Plan 2030 Update, to ensure it represents the most robust set of policies possible. The California Air Resources Board will release a discussion draft of the plan later this month, so stay tuned for more details.

Folsom Lake – an important reservoir and source of hydropower for California – at extremely low water levels in 2014 due to drought. Photo: California Department of Water Resources

At the same time, we also need to be thinking about how climate change will affect the infrastructure investments we make to meet the state’s targets, like updating our energy grid,and other key infrastructure investments (roads, bridges, water systems, etc.) that provide important public services and safety. The billions of dollars we spend each year on infrastructure should ensure that it’s built to last in the facing of a changing climate.

I’m thankful that California reasserted its continued leadership on this issue this year:

Governor Brown signed a UCS-sponsored bill into law, AB 2800 (Quirk), to help engineer our infrastructure – particularly bridges, roads, water systems, and buildings – to better withstand the impacts of climate change.

The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research is developing guidance for state agencies to incorporate climate impacts into planning and investment decisions, with a special focus on infrastructure and protecting the state’s most vulnerable populations. I represent UCS on the Technical Advisory Group for this effort. The guidance document should be released next month.

As with the targets, there is a lot more work still to be done. Yet these and other related efforts here in California can provide valuable insights for any major infrastructure investments by the Trump administration.

Looking To Next Thanksgiving

I count myself among the many people concerned with the health of the planet that are troubled by President-elect Trump’s statements on climate change. But I have hope that, as a businessman, he will look at California as a model for how global warming pollution can be reduced and climate resilience increased while growing a vibrant economy.

We have a lot of work ahead of us, but for today, I will choose gratitude. And then I’ll roll up my sleeves and get back to work alongside the millions of people advancing solutions to climate change worldwide, so that next year at this time, I’ll have even more reasons to be thankful.

California Department of Water Resources

]]>https://blog.ucsusa.org/jamesine-rogers-gibson/pie-and-praise-why-im-especially-thankful-for-californias-leadership-on-climate-this-thanksgiving/feed2Washington Moves to Reduce Carbon: A First Step but More Work Remainshttps://blog.ucsusa.org/jamesine-rogers-gibson/washington-moves-to-reduce-carbon-a-first-step-but-more-work-remains
https://blog.ucsusa.org/jamesine-rogers-gibson/washington-moves-to-reduce-carbon-a-first-step-but-more-work-remains#commentsWed, 12 Oct 2016 20:03:51 +0000http://blog.ucsusa.org/?p=45899

Deep reductions in heat-trapping emissions in Washington and globally are necessary to reduce the risks of climate change, like wildfires. Photo Credit: Washington State Department of Natural Resources

With this rule, the Evergreen State has shown that states do not need to wait for Washington, DC to take action on climate. It is a first step, but much works remains to ensure the rule is effective. Looking ahead, Washington must take further action to contribute to the deep reductions necessary globally to limit the risks of climate change – like wildfires – and protect the public’s health. Here we offer some additional thoughts and questions for Ecology’s consideration as they move to implementation and beyond.

A brief overview of the Clean Air Rule

Since the Clean Air Rule is the first-of-its-kind in the United States, it’s helpful to start with a brief overview of the rule. It regulates heat-trapping emissions from the largest emitting natural gas distributors, petroleum fuel producers and importers, and stationary sources, like power plants and pulp and paper mills, in Washington. Collectively, they account for two-thirds of the state’s emissions. Ecology estimates total cumulative reductions of more than 16 million metric tons of greenhouse gases through 2035

Individual emission limits

Each facility gets its own emission reduction pathway that begins with its average baseline emissions in 2012-2016 and decreases by an average of 1.7 percent each year. Every three years, it must demonstrate that it met its reduction goals or face penalties. At the outset, the rule covers 24 facilities, and gradually expands to cover 60 to 70 facilities by 2035. “Energy-intensive trade-exposed” industries, like aluminum smelters or pulp mills, start compliance later and can use an alternative emissions reduction formula. Because these industries are highly competitive globally and use a lot of energy, this option is intended to help reduce the likelihood that they’ll move their operations or emissions out-of-state due to the rule.

Meeting the targets

Facilities have flexibility to find the most cost-effective reductions to meet their individual caps. Ideally, a facility would achieve the majority of its reductions on-site, but the rule provides three other ways to comply as well. They can purchase emissions credits from other facilities with emissions below their caps or from voluntary participants; buy allowances from other multi-sector carbon markets in North America, like California; or procure credits from/invest in an approved set of projects or programs in Washington from the energy, transportation, industrial, livestock and waste and wastewater sectors (or ‘offsets’).

Since facilities can use an unlimited number of offsets for compliance, they may have less of an incentive to reduce emissions on-site. There’s also a risk that these reductions are inadvertently counted twice or ‘double-counted’ since offsets can come from sectors covered by the rule.

Emissions reserve

The rule does not set an explicit overall limit or clear line that total emissions cannot exceed. But it does take an important step towards an implicit limit by establishing an emissions reserve to accommodate business growth in Washington without increasing overall emissions. It serves a few other key purposes too, such as minimizing ‘double-counting’ and supporting environmental justice-related projects.

Unique approach

The Clean Air Rule’s overall approach is called a “baseline and credit system.” It differs from other cap-and-trade programs in the United States, like California’s program and the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, in important ways. The latter use a more established approach that sets an explicit declining economy-wide or sector-wide emissions cap. The cap is then divvied up into emissions allowances that are either allocated or auctioned. Facilities must hold allowances equal in number to their total emissions. They also differ in their approach to offsets since they place a limit on the number that can be used for compliance and do not allow credits from covered sectors. These and other differences could hinder the Clean Air Rule’s ability to link with other cap-and-trade systems.

Looking Towards Implementation and Beyond: Some Questions to Consider

Several questions remain for Ecology’s consideration as the rule moves to implementation. Photo Credit: Virtual EyeSee/Flickr

UCS worked closely with our allies in Washington to advocate for a strong rule with significant emission reductions. We appreciate Ecology’s efforts to address the concerns that we and other stakeholders raised during the rule’s development. And we have identified several questions for Ecology’s consideration during implementation and subsequent updates to help ensure that the Clean Air Rule is robust and realizes substantial reductions.

How can the rule better incentivize on-site reductions? Because facilities can rely solely on off-site credits like unlimited offsets to meet their emission reduction goals, many could have little incentive to reduce emissions on-site. Facilities should be encouraged to address their carbon intensive practices and rely less on alternative credits. These types of transformational changes are key for Washington’s transition to a low carbon economy and other important local benefits.

Do the credits from offsets and voluntary participants represent real additional reductions? Emission reductions from approved projects or programs must meet several criteria, including decreasing emissions beyond what’s required by rule or law. However, best practice for determining whether the reductions are beyond business-as-usual goes further to require reductions that would not occur absent the rule. Similarly, it’s unclear whether the credits from voluntary participants would represent reductions beyond business-as-usual practices or increase overall emissions.

Will the emissions reserve, as currently structured, be adequate to meet its important goals? The reserve gets its credits from the emission reductions generated when facilities intentionally shut down or reduce production, and a small fraction of the reductions achieved by covered facilities. Given potential demand, it is possible that there may not be enough emissions credits to continually cover all of the reserve’s multiple uses. If this happens, its ability to help preserve an implicit aggregate limit or address double-counting – critical features of the rule – would be compromised.

How will implementation ensure equitable reductions for all Washingtonians? The rule establishes an Environmental Justice Advisory Committee to award reserve credits to specific projects. It could also serve as a powerful conduit for the perspectives of low-income communities and communities of color during implementation. Air and water quality should also be protected from backsliding, especially in pollution hotspots that are often in frontline communities.

Keeping the ‘Evergreen’ in Washington

Recent studies project that the average acreage burned each year in the Evergreen State could double by 2040 with rising temperatures and drier conditions. That’s why we need to act now and take steps to limit these risks. UCS supports strong climate policies in Washington that reflect the magnitude of the climate challenge facing the state and help shape its transition to a clean energy economy. While the Clean Air Rule is a first step, it alone is not sufficient. Washington can and must play a leadership role through further actions to limit its carbon emissions. Otherwise, the state risks continuing to ‘play with fire.’

It’s no secret that our aging infrastructure is long overdue for a serious upgrade. Recently, this issue received national attention when the presidential candidates from both major parties committed to significant capital investments to improve our infrastructure system.

Indeed, infrastructure systems are critical for supporting our economy, quality of life, and public safety, and if designed well, they can have long lifespans. Yet, climate change is projected to severely stress our already-strained infrastructure. The investments we make today must take the long view, ensuring crucial services in the face of sea level rise and more frequent and intense extreme weather events.

Governor Brown brought California one step closer to addressing these risks by signing Assembly Bill 2800 (Quirk, D-Hayward) into law. AB 2800 establishes the Climate-Safe Infrastructure Working Group, bringing together scientists, engineers, and architects to better design our public infrastructure – roads, bridges, buildings, and water systems – to withstand the impacts of climate change. The bill passed with strong bipartisan support, including 13 Republicans, highlighting the broad support for this approach.

Folsom Lake – an important reservoir for California – at extremely low water levels in 2014 due to the drought. Photo: California Department of Water Resources

Designing for the “New Normal”

California spends billions of dollars each year on new and existing infrastructure projects. As climate change affects these projects, it puts these investments and our safety at risk. Traditionally, infrastructure project standards have relied on historical data and trends, but with climate change, the past is no longer a good predictor of the future. Instead, we need to design our infrastructure for the “new normal,” where we can expect higher temperatures, more frequent and intense storms, drought, and sea level rise.

UCS sponsored AB 2800 to address this disconnect. While California is a leader in climate data and tools, we found that engineers do not always have the information they need to help them integrate climate impacts, including a range of possible climate futures, into how they design and build infrastructure.

A Critical Conversation

Under AB 2800, the Natural Resources Agency will establish the Climate-Safe Infrastructure Working Group composed of state engineers, scientists, and architects by July 1, 2017. They will engage in a nuts-and-bolts conversation between the scientists who produce information on climate impacts and the engineers and architects who design and oversee public infrastructure projects. Their discussion will focus on how to better integrate climate impacts into infrastructure design, examining topics like key barriers, important information needs, and the best design approach for a range of future climate scenarios. By July 1, 2018, the working group must submit its findings and recommendations to the Legislature.

Building on Other State Efforts

The Climate-Safe Infrastructure Working Group will build upon many existing state adaptation efforts. Executive Order B-30-15 and recent laws like SB 246 (Wieckowski, 2015) and AB 1482 (Gordon, 2015) require state agencies to consider climate impacts in state planning and investments, including infrastructure. The working group’s efforts are complementary to these efforts and focus on filling a narrow but important gap – the need for conversations about how we build climate resilient infrastructure to directly involve those engineers and architects who design our state infrastructure projects.

The working group will coordinate with state adaptation planning efforts and other state agencies focused on sustainable infrastructure. This guarantees that its work both informs critical efforts, like the Five Year Infrastructure Plan, and is informed by them as well.

Looking Ahead

UCS is grateful to Governor Brown and Assembly Member Quirk for their leadership to address this disconnect between climate science and engineering design. Just as seismic standards are essential to public safety when a disastrous earthquake strikes, the stakes can also be high if we don’t design our infrastructure to withstand the impacts of climate change. The passage of AB 2800 brings California one step closer to the safe and resilient infrastructure system we need to protect our safety, our economy, and our environment now and for decades to come.

UPDATE (August 9, 2016): Momentum is continuing to build around AB 2800 in the California Legislature and among experts who design and build our critical infrastructure. Learn more.

Californians depend on a safe and robust infrastructure system to get what they need and where they need to go. It is critical to the state’s economy—the 7th largest in the world—and the safety and quality of life for all its residents. From roads and bridges to dams, reservoirs, and buildings, the state spends billions of dollars each year on infrastructure projects to preserve and enhance the system’s capacity to reliably provide these crucial services.

But climate change is affecting portions of our existing infrastructure, and is likely to have even greater impacts on new infrastructure. This is especially true for projects built to last past mid-century when climate projections become more severe.

These long-lived infrastructure projects should be built to withstand the impacts of a changing climate so they can remain functional, durable, and safe over their useful lives. The creation of a Climate-Safe Infrastructure Working Group (Assembly Bill 2800, Quirk, 2016) composed of engineers and climate scientists is a small but necessary step towards this goal.

Building for a “new normal”

As a result of climate change, the past is often no longer a good predictor of future conditions. In a report released last year, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) described how engineering practices must adapt in the face of a changing climate:

“Engineering practices and standards are typically based on assumed stationarity of extremes of climate and weather – that the frequencies and intensities of extremes observed in the past adequately represent those that will occur in the future. This assumption may not be valid under a changing climate.”

Flooding from intense rains in Northern California shuts down several lanes of highway traffic. Photo: Gary Reyes/Bay Area News Group

Instead, we can expect higher temperatures, more frequent and intense extreme weather events, and accelerated sea level rise in the future, as described in the state’s most recent climate assessment. Californians are already experiencing some of these impacts today, including rising sea levels, heat waves, flooding, and a record-breaking drought.

The way we design our infrastructure must reflect this “new normal” so that it can withstand these changing forces and stay durable, safe, and functional for many decades to come.

Disconnects between engineering and science threaten infrastructure safety and benefits

This shift will require better integration of climate science into engineering practices and standards. For example, Caltrans’ Highway Design Manual provides guidance to engineers on designing the state’s highway system. Section 818 acknowledges that “stationarity,” as described above, may no longer be a valid assumption when designing roads to withstand floods. Yet at the same time, it recommends a stationarity-based approach until there’s consensus on future trends.

Science overwhelmingly points to a future with more extreme weather events while climate models provide possible ranges for these changing conditions. They each come with varying degrees of uncertainty, particularly at the geographic scale used for infrastructure projects. (One of the biggest sources of uncertainty is the rate of heat-trapping emissions over the next century, which is directly influenced by our policy choices today.) This information, however, is not always available in a form that is readily usable for engineering purposes.

The stakes are high for getting this right. Take the new Bay Bridge, for example. The project began prior to the state’s requirement to consider sea level rise in construction project planning. According to a report by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the approach to the new Bay Bridge “will be permanently inundated by three feet of sea level rise,” resulting in costly transportation delays for 280,000 vehicles that traverse the bridge daily and millions of dollars for protective measures. It serves as a cautionary tale for the state’s major infrastructure investments.

It’s also not the only instance of infrastructure planning that has ignored climate science. Last year, my colleague profiled several other “climate-water” disconnects in a blog series on the topic.

Assembly Bill 2800: bridging the science-engineering gap

Fortunately, Governor Brown and the Legislature recognize the need to consider climate impacts in the state’s infrastructure planning and investments. State agencies and the Office of Planning and Research are undertaking important planning efforts in response. The state has also invested heavily in developing state-of-the-art models to project a variety of climate impacts and making this information publicly available.

What’s missing from these efforts is a two-way conversation between the climate scientists who produce this information and the engineers who design and oversee public infrastructure projects. Put simply, climate scientists need to engage engineers so they can provide them with practicable climate information. Engineers should also work closely with scientists to gain a better understanding of the underlying assumptions and caveats of the climate data. ASCE’s 2015 report underscores the importance of this collaborative effort for designing infrastructure to withstand the unavoidable impacts of a changing climate.

Assembly Bill 2800 (Quirk, 2016) fills this gap by establishing a Climate-Safe Infrastructure Working Group. The working group brings together engineers and climate scientists from key state agencies and research centers to identify best practices and recommendations for integrating climate science into engineering design practices for public infrastructure projects.

This critical conversation, and the information it will generate, represents a small but crucial step towards an infrastructure system capable of supporting our economy, public safety, and quality of life in the new climate future.

UPDATE (August 9, 2016): AB 2800 passed out of the California Assembly in June with a bipartisan vote and is now in the Senate, where it’s in the Appropriations Committee after passing the Natural Resources and Water Committee and the Environmental Quality Committee. It now includes licensed architects with relevant experience as members of the working group, in addition to engineers and climate scientists.